[Distutils] Proposal: Meta extensions (components)

[Mike Fletcher]

This sounds a great deal like the Distribution Unit in the Open Software
Description (http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-OSD.html).  Might we want to adapt
rather than reinvent such a thing?

Bonus for Paul: it's XML! ;o) 

Enjoy yourselves,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: M.-A. Lemburg [mailto:mal@lemburg.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:05 AM
To: Paul Prescod
Cc: distutils-sig@python.org
Subject: Re: [Distutils] Proposal: Meta extensions (components)


Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
> Andrew Kuchling wrote:
...
> Let's start with terminology: there is a "missing term" in our
> vocabulary. People sometimes use the words "module", "extension" and
> "package" for a "distutils unit" but those words already have precise
> meanings in the Python world. I propose the term "distutils component".
> A distutils component consists of a directory which contains a setup.py
> and some other code. The component is also the unit of versioning.
> 
> Some components "embed" other components. The parent component is
> dependent on the embedded component and for convenience, the embedded
> component is distributed with the parent. Embedding may go away when
> distutils has proper dependency tracking -- but it may not.
> 
> It should be possible to create a "parent component" or "meta component"
> by specifying the paths to sub-components. Just as you specify
> "py_modules", "extensions" and so forth, you should be able to specify
> "sub_components". Then distutils itself would do all of the "for
> subcomponent in subcomponents: run_setup()" hackery that NumPy, ZODB,
> etc. do "by hand" today.
> 
> This could map into installers too. There is probably a way to create
> RPMs that contain RPMs, windows EXEs that contain windows EXEs and so
> forth.
...